MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials confiscated his property in retaliation for filing a grievance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Norwood failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the confiscation of his property was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id. at 1269 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference should be afforded to prison officials in evaluating proffered “legitimate penological” goals); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

Norwood’s contention that the applicable prison regulation requiring confiscation of his property was “illegal” is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.